Originally posted by Timothy Hyde: I think the Blaine analogy (mentioned above) is quite accurate. The reactions of the juggling community pretty much echo those we heard from many many magicians when DB captured the publics imagination and pushed the appropriate psychological buttons.

Mrgoat thanks for posting the Garfield link however. As a closet 5 ball juggler (only rarely on stage these days),I was stunned by his skill and amused by his audacity in putting the clip together. But, I don't think I'll be sending the link on to many friends.

Timothy Hyde

I don't think he intended you to Timothy. I think he was just making a point. Some people got it, some didn't. That is par for the course for most of Jason's work. :)

When I got back from WMS and found the video for Bliss, I emailed to everyone I knew. Entertainers and laymen. They all loved it. This morning I did the same. The only reply I got agrees with us. Big deal, no emotion. Just like Brian said, it's like watching the world's greatest card flourisher. I'd really take some simple but good tricks anyday. Look at Blaine's first special and see what he did. Invisible deck, folding coin, top changes out of frame, and an ambitious card routine RK's little one could do. Couple all that simple stuff with some fancy editing on a Balducci levitation and you're a household name.

Pepka

You seem to be missing the point and that's cool. Jason didn't do the video as a 'This Is Juggling' clip. He did it as a dig. It wasn't intended to be a clip to demonstrate what juggling was all about.

His site already has enough of those.

I am really pleased you enjoyed Bliss. That's great. Loads of people enjoyed Blaine. You are right, it's a good analogy. Slightly flawed in the fact that Bliss - afaik - doesn't have a network special. Aside from that, it's a good analogy.

Anyone can go and buy the props Blaine did and duplicate his act. Just as anyone can duplicate Bliss's performance. Maybe with more technical skill.

Originally posted by mrgoat:I repeat. I was just posting a clip I thought was funny.

No need to take it all so seriously.

In all fairness, though, your initial post didn't indicate at all that you were presenting it as humor. Rather, it came across as throwing down the gauntlet. I really don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise when your first two sentences are putting Chris down, your third states that you like Jason better and then you go on to present evidence why you think Jason is better. Had you instead said something like "Check out Jason's parody of Chris's routine," I imagine that this thread would have followed a very different path.

Both performers were incredible. Juggling 5 balls is clearly harder than 3. Garfield is superb at that.

Bliss however juggled without stopping. There were no pauses to regrip the balls. The continuous action was mesmerizing. Also, performing in front of a live audience with stage lighting is more challenging than a work out in your gym.

I would also add that trying to one-up someone's act is unprofessional and juvenile despite his immense talents.

I agree 100% Larry. However mrgoat and I agree on one thing, it's only juggling. I for one am done with this topic and will immediately return to much more important issues: Erdnase's real name, who Marlo stole what from, and most importantly, how I can get a TV special and sleep with models based on crappy close-up magic. :D

First. let me state that I'm someone who has occasionally )unsuccessfully) tried to learn to juggle three balls, so any juggling generally impresses me. The thing that I'm surprised at, in this thread on a magician's forum, is that no one has pointed out that, while Chris Bliss's routine may not be technically demanding from a juggler's perspective, the originality of the routine is where the true mark of an entertainer shows through.

I've seen thread after thread on this forum of people complaining about magicians copying others routines and not putting the work to come up with original presentations. Chris may not be as proficient as Garfield technically but who was original enough to come up with the presentation? Anyone can copy someone else's gig. I don't think adding another level of difficulty takes as much skill as coming up with an original presentation.

Yes, only juggling, but still a fascinating thread, because there is the clear underlying parallel with what we do.One thing neither garfield nor Mr Goat seem to have considered, though, was WHY did everyone and their mother circulate this film of Bliss, and not one by Garfield or MrGoat's multi-award winning brother?Mr Goat said it might get on our tits if people were raving over a Sven deck routine....given the thousands of Sven decks that have been sold over the years, I hope i might have the maturity to stop and think and try to analyse and understand what it was about THIS Sven deck that had to touched the public....rather than just shout "this is crap, anyone could do it"

Originally posted by DomT: Yes, only juggling, but still a fascinating thread, because there is the clear underlying parallel with what we do.One thing neither garfield nor Mr Goat seem to have considered, though, was WHY did everyone and their mother circulate this film of Bliss, and not one by Garfield or MrGoat's multi-award winning brother?Mr Goat said it might get on our tits if people were raving over a Sven deck routine....given the thousands of Sven decks that have been sold over the years, I hope i might have the maturity to stop and think and try to analyse and understand what it was about THIS Sven deck that had to touched the public....rather than just shout "this is crap, anyone could do it"

Very good question. I imagine it was a lot to do with the music. Too many jugglers use dreadful music.

I also imagine it was because hardly anyone gets to see 3 ball routines.

Maybethe audience reaction being on the soundtrack helped?

Viral marketing is all about getting someone to fwd something. This is part of my job, so thanks for making me think about why it was forwarded.

And tbh, I don't care at all about 'the direction this thread has taken'.

And yet you feel the need to repeatedly state "no need to take it all so seriously," and how you believe that everyone is missing the point -- an indication that you do actually care about the direction of the thread.

If you want to think I was somehow attacking something you hold dear to your heart, that is - of course - your perogotive.

Can you show me where I indicated my feelings either way? I don't believe I stated anywhere that I felt my personal beliefs were being attacked. I merely pointed out how the wording of your original post could cause some to think you were presenting it as a challenge.

I didnt know that magicians were so passionate about our brothers in the variety arts (jugglers).

I cant resist putting my two cents worth, so here we go:

Ive worked with both Jason Garfield and Chris Bliss professionally (on separate occasions). They are both very nice guys and they are very talented in their own way.

Jason does a very funny comedy-juggling act where the levity hinges upon his stage persona (which is that of a sullen, bitter and somewhat angry juggler). He portrays this character in order to garner laughs, however the main commercial component of his act is the fact that he is a tremendously skilled juggler.

In fact he is so skilled that when I watched his practice sessions I often saw him do some tricks that I frankly thought were impossible. In my (non-expert) opinion I would venture to say that Jason is one of the top five technical jugglers in the world today.

Chris Bliss was a professional juggler in the 1970s. His main forte at the time was the choreograph combination of juggling and clever lighting effect to recorded pop music. His originality and visual appeal is what got him booked as the opening act of the Jacksons Victory Tour. A small magic history note: Charlie Miller mentions Chriss act in a positive way in the Magicana column of Genii magazine.

As the years went by Chris dropped almost all of the juggling from his act and he eventually became a stand-up comedian. The one routine he kept was the three-tennis balls to The Beatles. Incidentally Chris came up with this routine when his roommate in college played the Abbey Road album while he happened to be juggling.

Chriss act usually goes as follows: He does straight stand-up comedy and only at the finale he juggles the balls. This no doubt echoes the modus operandi of the vaudeville comedians who almost always closed their stand-up acts with a song or some sort of skill such as eccentric dancing. Now the fact that Chris has been booked on many TV shows around the world to do just his ball routine proves that the routine stands on its own. But, I think it is best appreciated when he does it as the finale to a stand up comedy act. Because when viewed in context you see that Chriss comedy character reveals no hint that he has physical skills and when the music starts and he starts juggling the audience is shocked and mesmerized by the strong emotional impact of the Beatles music. Furthermore I think that real charm of the routine is that fact that Chriss juggling technique is so idiosyncratic. By that I mean he quite frankly juggles like a guy who does know how you are supposed to juggle (When I told this to Chris, he laughed).

So the effect to the spectator is a very good stand-up comedian picks up three tennis balls. The Beatles music starts and the comedian who appears to be an ordinary middle-aged man suddenly begins to interpret the music in a sort of juggling trance. This magical journey blows the people away.

Now as I said before Jason Garfield is a brilliant juggler and a very funny comedy performer and Im a big fan. But within the juggling world, Jason is a very controversial figure. Much in the way that the late Andy Kaufman reveled in the controversy and anger that the audience projected on him during his forays into professional wrestling and his Tony Clifton character. Jason loves to stir things up and if I were to guess his Chris Bliss Diss video was designed for that purpose. And I suspect that the fact so many words about him (Jason) were consumed on a website for magicians (as opposed to juggling websites) will probably put a big smile on his face.

Damian says: "I agree with you totally that laypeople - ie people that do not know what they are looking at and are unqualified to comment - will and indeed did enjoy it. But, Garfield, Penn and others took issue with the lameness of it."

I think that as entertainers we should always take seriously the reactions and comments of the lay public. They may be unqualified to comment on the technical aspects of a performance, but are imminently qualified to comment on how entertaining the piece was. And isn't entertainment our goal, after all?Bob Taxin

You seem to be missing the point and that's cool. Jason didn't do the video as a 'This Is Juggling' clip. He did it as a dig.

This, I think, is the most telling line in the thread. While most of us have egos, it has been my experience, that those striving for art, or at least improvement, are generally supportive of others on similar paths. However, those who know that what they are offering is merely a commodity, one that can be replicated by someone with enough money or time, tend be be afraid of those with vision or genuine uniqueness- something they lack. We all know that in a few years the next 4 year old 18 ball juggler is bound to show up. Those that only have skill, and no vision, will have to take a back seat.

This is not to say that those who strive for art do not get frustrated with the hacks, but BLiss is NOT a hack. He clearly has a vision and one that he realized.

To echo Mr. Duncan's post, I was always told of jealous amateur magicians who, walking a trade show floor, would see Eddie Tulluck perform. Invariably they would approach him to give him pointers on his top change - something they saw with ease.

They would often walk away muttering, "I could do that."

In this case, the magicians eyes fooled himself. He could NOT see what the lay person - or in this case especially, the sales team - saw. He only saw what his short sighted vision allowed him to see - technique; and even then, technique outside the larger context in which it completely fooled the layperson.

The juggler who watches Bliss and sees only technique misses the point. The piece is NOT about technique. It is about music, and movement, and lyrics that many have a relationship to, and the visual representation of all in a cohesive package. All of these elements, all of these symbols, come together and produce a feelingful response in the participant, the viewer. It is an aesthetic moment. It speaks to them.

It is, I think, art.

If this feeling can be conveyed with tossing one ball in the air it is no less artful.

To fixate on the number of balls is to miss the point. And sadly, those who do, will never SEE Bliss's vision - because, like the trade show floor walker, their eyes are not open.

I'd have to say that the most telling point is that Bliss' video is for a packed auditorium of cheering audience members while Garfield's is in an empty gym with 1,2 or 3 camera men (depending on how many takes were done to get all those camera angles.) It's two different situations altogether.

As for me, I'd take 3 balls, a nice corporate gig paycheck, and satisfaction in knowing that others were moved to such jealousy that they did a technically beautiful garage band-like cover of my material, including bowing to my applause.

I didn't know what Mr. Garfield's site was so I just typed in his name followed with a .com. Sure enough, it was his. The funniest thing on the site was his "Stolen Material Alert" where he warns people of specific juggling routines that have been stolen without the creator's permission.

Mr. Goat, you're right - in that context, the Garfield clip IS funny! What a hoot!

OK, I said I was done with this topic, but his bit about stolen material is just too damn funny. I consider most of those things "standard" for jugglers. Maybe because I've seen a lot more jugglers than normal people ever have, (or should.) Has anyone ever made a list like this for magicians?

A friend of mine and I were talking about magic on the radio. I commented that anothe friend used to present magic and ventriloquism on the Refro Valley Barn Dance radio show. She thought the notion of a vent act on the radio odd, until I reminded her of Edgar Bergan.

And that brings me back to this thread.

Bergan could do vent on the radio and it played. Why? Because the art of ventriloquism is about much more than the mere technique of talking without one's lips moving. In Mr. Bergen's case was the creation of the illusion of life, characters that have become iconic.

When he transitioned to film, he saw his lips move - but that did npt cause his popularity to suffer. His art was more than his technique.

Likewise in magic, our techniques allow us to be deceptive, but merely deceiving someone is perhaps the lowest form of magic. I can lie to you and you are deceived. Magic can be so much more.

And so with juggling. Technique is the means to the end. Sure, we need technique to get there, and no one would ever advocate using BAD technique. But it is a step, not the trip.

Bliss took his audience on a journey.Garfield is trying to sip a glass of water without foolishness dribbling down his chin.

I was very amused at Jason's web site. He is totally wrong about the origins of one of the "stolen" bits, specifically the one that he credits to the Raspyni brothers.

I worked with these guys for a couple of years on the Renaissance Festival circuit. They pinched that bit (as well as a lot of the rest of their act) from a group called "Fly By Night." If anyone wants verification of this, they can contact Victoria Barclay at Best Entertainers.

Vic had told me about the Raspynis, but I didn't believe her...until the day I saw the other group juggling at Dickens on the Strand. I went back to the Raspynis and said "There's a group called Fly by Night that is doing your material."

Very embarrassed, they said, "There's nothing we can do about it." They were right. It wasn't their material in the first place.

I just found this thread of disagreements, and, as one who was quite taken with the Chris Bliss clip, I had to take a look at Jason's.

MrGoat is right in some respects. The juggling is more difficult, technically better, and the body language is more graceful.

It is also an inferior performance. Most of what he did to show more skill actually made the performance weaker.

Much of the synchonisation to the music was actually lost in the added confusion of following five balls. The smoothness of motion, graceful as it may have been, lost the emotional content and the Beatles Rock feeling.

Biss had exactly the right touch to the right routine to get a fantastic audience reaction. He deserved it.

And if a magician gets a standing ovation because he develops a brilliantly audience-moving routine involving nothing more than beginner moves with a Svengali deck, then he (or she) deserves it, too, however much the more accomplished sleightmasters might howl.

Originally posted by Steve Glaser:And if a magician gets a standing ovation because he develops a brilliantly audience-moving routine involving nothing more than beginner moves with a Svengali deck, then he (or she) deserves it, too, however much the more accomplished sleightmasters might howl.

This should be engraved in brass and made required reading for everyone in magic who has hopes of working in front of a paying audience.

Magic is about creating the illusion of magic, not about clever methods and technique, so beloved by amateurs.

One of the most successful vaudeville performers did what was believed to be a fantastically advanced sleight of hand routine with a shuffled deck of cards. It baffled the leading experts of the day (including Vernon). The truth was not revealed until years after the performer's death.

All he'd done was add a stack of cards to the top of the shuffled deck at a moment that was covered with strong misdirection. That was the only sleight. Nothing else. The routine carried him through vaudeville for years and made him a lot of money.

It fooled everyone at the time because they were looking for complicated when the intelligent performer opted for simple and direct.

Advanced sleight of hand does not automatically equate to "great" magic or a "great magician" in the eyes of the lay public. The only people who can appreciate advanced sleight of hand are other magicians because all the lay person sees is the Effect.

If Effect is accomplished by some convoluted, knuckle-busting sleight of hand that took 10 years to perfect or an unseen gimmick or a trick deck of cards, the audience doesn't know the difference....or care. They just want to be entertained. The performer who delivers the illusion of magic combined with solid entertainment is the better magician.

Chris is an awesome juggler and has a lot of charisma when you see him live.

When I was with David Copperfield and we did our very first tour 23 years ago, Chris opened for us, so I had the opportunity to see him live many times. Back then he was also controlling his own lighting system with foot petals, so imagine all the juggling timed out to music, but also hitting foot petals to change the mood during the songs.

I'm not saying the other guy isn't technically good - but there is a lesson in this - technique isn't everything. Bliss got a standing ovation (as he did 23 years ago) with only 3 balls. That audience wasn't thinking that would have been really good with 5 balls!

Eccentric is the "erratic" throws and catches vs. a smooth style... Bliss is a perfect example while the other tech guy is not eccentric but smoother, even in his attempted copy of Bliss. Topper Martyn was eccentric.

Wow... here's another clip of Bliss from at least 10 or more years ago. While basically the same (on this clip he is operating lighting changes via foot swiches) you can see how he has GROWN as an ARTIST over time. Enjoy it...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 42&pl=true

Just read this thread, explored some of the links, and saw as well some great juggling. After all that, it all seems so clear:

One man is at ease with the number of balls he has.

The other man is not.

Speaking of balls....(or the lack thereof)

mrgoat wrote:

I repeat. I was just posting a clip I thought was funny. No need to take it all so seriously.

Jim Maloney replied:

In all fairness, though, your initial post didn't indicate at all that you were presenting it as humor. ... I really don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise when your first two sentences are putting Chris down, your third states that you like Jason better and then you go on to present evidence why you think Jason is better...

mrgoat replied:

... I don't care what anyone thinks, but I do care if people get heated about something of utterly no importance. Hope that clarifies it.

Jim Maloney replied:

And yet you feel the need to repeatedly state "no need to take it all so seriously," and how you believe that everyone is missing the point -- an indication that you do actually care about the direction of the thread.

For what its worth to you, Jim, I think you were right on the money. mrgoat has a dog in this fight, that was clear from his very first post, and became ever more irrefutable with each of his successive posts.

mrgoat has also written:

Garfield, Penn and others took issue with the lameness of [Bliss and his video, etc.]

So, Damian, I gather that you have lectured Garfield, Penn and others that its only juggling and to lighten up, right? Right.

Also, now that you have clarified the real reason why you made your initial post, can you explain whats so funny about the Garfield video? Was it his exhibition of great technical skill? Lighting? Venue? Camera angles? Soundtrack? Garfields attack on Bliss on his website? Garfields bald head?

Finally, mrgoat wrote:

This isn't alt.tragic or the caf.

In that case, take the hypocritical [censored] youve been spewing on this thread to one of those places and stop insulting the intelligence of GF readers.

Hope that clarifies it. And as you say, Damian, this is only an internet forum, so no need to take any of the foregoing seriously ... man.